The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 32 of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies”) provides that “The Financial Services Commission shall examine whether the largest shareholder among the largest shareholders of a financial company meets the requirements prescribed by Presidential Decree (the requirements for maintaining eligibility), such as not violating the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, and the Act on Punishment of Tax Evaders, and the Acts and subordinate statutes prescribed by Presidential Decree, at a certain time, with respect to the largest shareholder of the financial company.”

In addition, Article 38 of the Criminal Act provides that a financial company's duty to report to the Financial Services Commission when it finds that the person fails to meet the requirements for maintaining eligibility of the person subject to examination of eligibility, a request to provide data or information for examination of eligibility, an order to restrict the exercise of voting rights when it is difficult to maintain the order to take measures when the person fails to meet the requirements for maintaining eligibility as a result of examination, and an order to restrict the exercise of voting rights when the person fails to meet the requirements for maintaining eligibility, shall be tried and sentenced separately, notwithstanding Article 38 of the Criminal Act.

In full view of the forms and contents of the above provisions, Article 32 of the Act on the Management of Financial Services and Capital Markets requires the Financial Services Commission to periodically examine the qualifications of one largest investor among the largest shareholders of a financial company subject to examination of qualifications to maintain the soundness of the financial company and prescribe matters necessary for the examination and measures thereof.

Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret Article 32 (6) of the Act on the Management of Financial Companies as applicable to cases where the defendant is the largest investor subject to examination of eligibility as provided in paragraph (1).

2. The charged facts of this case are as follows.